The COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact daily life, including health system operations, despite the availability of vaccines that are effective in greatly reducing the risks of death and severe disease. Misperceptions of COVID-19 vaccine safety, efficacy, risks, and mistrust in institutions responsible for vaccination campaigns have been reported as factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy. This study investigated COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy globally in June 2021. Nationally representative samples of 1,000 individuals from 23 countries were surveyed. Data were analyzed descriptively, and weighted multivariable logistic regressions were used to explore associations with vaccine hesitancy. Here, we show that more than three-fourths (75.2%) of the 23,000 respondents report vaccine acceptance, up from 71.5% one year earlier. Across all countries, vaccine hesitancy is associated with a lack of trust in COVID-19 vaccine safety and science, and skepticism about its efficacy. Vaccine hesitant respondents are also highly resistant to required proof of vaccination; 31.7%, 20%, 15%, and 14.8% approve requiring it for access to international travel, indoor activities, employment, and public schools, respectively. For ongoing COVID-19 vaccination campaigns to succeed in improving coverage going forward, substantial challenges remain to be overcome. These include increasing vaccination among those reporting lower vaccine confidence in addition to expanding vaccine access in low- and middle-income countries.

Background COVID-19 is diagnosed via detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA using real time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rtRT-PCR). Performance of many SARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR assays is not entirely known due to the lack of a gold standard. We sought to evaluate the false negative rate (FNR) and sensitivity of our laboratory-developed SARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR targeting the envelope (E) and RNA-dependent RNA-polymerase (RdRp) genes. Methods SARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR results at the Public Health Laboratory (Alberta, Canada) from January 21 to April 18, 2020 were reviewed to identify patients with an initial negative rtRT-PCR followed by a positive result on repeat testing within 14 days (defined as discordant results). Negative samples from these discordant specimens were re-tested using three alternate rtRT-PCR assays (targeting the E gene and N1/N2 regions of the nucleocapsid genes) to assess for false negative (FN) results. Results During the time period specified, 95,919 patients (100,001 samples) were tested for SARS-CoV-2. Of these, 49 patients were found to have discordant results including 49 positive and 52 negative swabs. Repeat testing of 52 negative swabs found five FNs (from five separate patients). Assuming 100% specificity of the diagnostic assay, the FNR and sensitivity in this group of patients with discordant testing was 9.3% (95% CI 1.5–17.0%) and 90.7% (95% CI 82.6–98.9%) respectively. Conclusions Studies to understand the FNR of routinely used assays are important to confirm adequate clinical performance. In this study, most FN results were due to low amounts of SARS-CoV-2 virus concentrations in patients with multiple specimens collected during different stages of infection. Post-test clinical evaluation of each patient is advised to ensure that rtRT-PCR results are not the only factor in excluding COVID-19.

Public health measures to reduce COVID-19 transmission include masking in public places, physical distancing, staying home when ill, avoiding high-risk locations, using a contact tracing app, and being willing to take a COVID-19 vaccine. However, adoption of these measures varies greatly. We aimed to improve health messaging to increase adherence to public health behaviours to reduce COVID-19 transmission by: 1) determining attitudes towards public health measures and current behaviours; 2) identifying barriers to following public health measures; and, 3) identifying public health communication strategies. We recruited participants from a random panel of 3000 phone numbers across Alberta to fill a predetermined quota: age (18–29; 30–59; 60+ years), geographic location (urban; rural), and whether they had school-age children. Two researchers coded and themed all transcripts. We performed content analysis and in-depth thematic analysis. Nine focus groups were conducted with 2–8 participants/group in August-September, 2020. Several themes were identified: 1) importance of public health measures; 2) compliance with public health measures; 3) critiques of public health messaging; and 4) suggestions for improving public health messaging. Physical distancing and masking were seen as more important than using a contact tracing app. There were mixed views around willingness to take COVID-19 vaccine. Current public health messaging was perceived as conflicting. Participants felt that consistent messaging and using social media to reach younger people would be helpful. In conclusion, these findings provide insights that can be used to inform targeted (e.g., by age, current behaviour) public health communications to encourage behaviors that reduce COVID-19 transmission.

Background: COVID serological tests are essential to determine the overall seroprevalence of a population, and to facilitate exposure estimates within that population. Methods: We performed a head-to-head assessment of enzyme immunoassays (EIA) and point of care lateral flow assays (POCT) to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Demographics, symptoms, co-morbidities, treatment, and mortality of patients whose sera was used were also reviewed. Results: Six EIAs (Abbott, Affinity, BioRad, DiaSorin, Euroimmun, and Roche), and six POCTs (BTNX, Biolidics, Deep Blue, Genrui, Getein BioTech, and Innovita) were evaluated for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in known COVID-19 infected individuals. Sensitivity of EIAs ranged from 50-100%, with only four assays having overall sensitivities >95% after 21 days post symptom onset. Notably, cross-reactivity with other respiratory viruses (PIV-4 (n=5), hMPV (n=3), rhinovirus/enterovirus (n=1), CoV-229E (n=2), CoV-NL63 (n=2), and CoV-OC43 (n=2) was observed; however, overall specificity for EIAs was good (92-100%; where all but one assay had specificity above 95%). POCTs were 0-100% sensitive >21 days post onset, with specificity ranging from 96-100%. However, many POCTs had faint banding and were often difficult to interpret. Conclusions: Serology assays can detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as early as 10 days post onset. Serology assays vary in their sensitivity based on the marker (IgA/M vs. IgG vs. total) and by manufacturer; however, overall only 4 EIA and 4 POCT assays had sensitivities >95% >21 days post symptom onset. Cross-reactivity with other seasonal coronaviruses is of concern. The use of serology assays should not be used for the diagnosis of acute infection, but rather for use in carefully designed serosurveys to facilitate understanding of seroprevalence in a population and to identify previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2.